The aim of this communication is to present the results of an exploratory survey on co-teaching practices between general and special education teachers in French primary schools, focusing on one of the country’s 30 school districts. According to Tremblay (2012), co-teaching refers to the joint pedagogical work conducted by two or more teachers within the same space and at the same time. This collaborative practice aligns with the inclusive education movement initiated by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), which has influenced educational policies globally. In France, legislation has progressively evolved in this direction, and the notion of “inclusive school” was mentioned for the first time in the law in 2013 (law 2013-595 of July 8, 2013). After the enactment of this law, collaborative practices between general education and special education teachers working within the same classroom began to be encouraged in ministerial guidelines (although the term co-teaching was not explicitly used), and school districts started to provide tools that are designed to help teachers in implementing co-teaching. This reflects a willingness in France to embrace the international movement towards inclusive education (UNESCO, 2020), while also promoting a collaborative approach that could foster more inclusive practices (Toullec-Théry, 2019).

The survey presented is the first part of a broader doctoral research project aimed at studying the impact of co-teaching approaches on the accessibility of learning for all students, with a specific focus on co-teaching situations in mainstream primary school classrooms. According to Friend and Cook (2017), co-teaching approaches refer to the respective roles and positions teachers assume in such pedagogical settings. These authors identify six distinct approaches: (1) “Team teaching” allows both teachers to lead the session simultaneously; (2) in the “one teaches, one assists” approach, one teacher conducts the session while the other provides individual support to students; (3) in “one teaches, one observes”, one teacher leads the class while the other observes; (4) in “station teaching”, each teacher supervises a group of students, rotating groups as needed; (5) in the “alternative teaching” approach, one teacher leads the class while the other works with a group, using differentiated methods and procedures; and (6) “parallel teaching” allows both teachers to lead equally sized groups.

This survey sought to address the following research questions: (1) Which co-teaching approaches do participants (i.e., French general and special education teachers; see Methodology) report using among those described by Friend and Cook (2017)? (2) Do they report using alternative approaches beyond these? (3) If certain approaches are reported to be used more often than others, why and based on what criteria? By highlighting co-teaching in French primary schools, this communication contributes to the global discourse on how educational research and practices can address contemporary challenges, such as fostering inclusive education, while charting a path forward in an evolving educational landscape.

A link to an online self-administered questionnaire was distributed to all general primary school teachers and special education teachers working in primary schools within the relevant school district. It was designed using the LimeSurvey software, based on a literature review on co-teaching, our research questions, and three existing questionnaires from studies on co-teaching (Gremion & Carron, 2020; Janin & Couvert, 2020; Tremblay & Granger, 2020). It contains 18 questions, 12 closed-ended and six open-ended, focusing on four main areas. The first gathers contextual data on teachers' working conditions (current position, county, tenure, specialized teacher certification, socio-professional environment) which may influence their practices and representations (Fanchini, 2022). The second area looks at their co-teaching experience (tenure, frequency). The third explores the implementation of co-teaching approaches; for example, which approaches are used, how often, and how do teachers choose a particular approach? Finally, the fourth area questions the perceived effects of co-teaching on the accessibility of learning for students. The questionnaire was pre-tested by two special education teachers who were accustomed to co-teaching but were not part of the survey sample. Their feedback allowed for adjustments to some of the contextual questions to improve their relevance. A total of 133 fully completed and 60 partially completed questionnaires were received. Data processing began by exporting the responses to the closed-ended questions into the open-source statistical software Jamovi, where descriptive statistical analysis was performed. When questionnaires were not fully completed by respondents, unanswered questions were excluded from the analysis to ensure the consistency of the results, avoid bias from missing data, and provide an analysis reflecting only the complete answers provided by the participants. Additionally, the data from the open-ended questions underwent thematic analysis (Paillé & Mucchielli, 2021), a method that allowed us to synthesize the collected textual data by identifying key themes to describe and understand its content. The results we present mainly rely on the responses to the first and third areas of the questionnaire, with a particular focus on the third area (co-teaching approaches), as it is most directly related to our research questions. Sixty-nine general education teachers and 28 special education teachers responded to the questions in the third area.

Concerning our first research question, all co-teaching approaches described by Friend and Cook (2017) were mentioned. The most frequently mentioned approaches were “one teaches, one assists” (n = 57 general education teachers and n = 28 special education teachers), “alternative teaching” (n = 51 and n = 28) and “station teaching” (n = 42 and n = 28). “Parallel teaching” was the approach least frequently cited as being used (n = 24 and n = 19). As for our second research question, no co-teaching approaches were identified beyond those presented by Friend and Cook (2017). For the third research question, 22 responses provided data on teachers' approach choices and explained why “one teaches, one assists”, “alternative teaching”, and “station teaching” were preferred over the other approaches. The thematic analysis enabled us to classify these responses into two categories: didactic and pedagogical reasons (n = 13, e.g., “station teaching” reported as reinforcing previously taught knowledge), and collaborative factors (n = 9, e.g., “alternative teaching” and “station teaching” mentioned as more suitable for mainstream classrooms than the others). To gain a more complete understanding of these questions, additional data are needed: semi-structured interviews will provide more insight on teachers' reasons for selecting specific approaches, and filmed co-teaching sessions will allow for a more detailed analysis of the impact of actual co-teaching practices on inclusive classroom practices, particularly regarding the accessibility of learning for all students.

Assude, T., Perez, J.-M., Suau, G., Tambone, J., & Vérillon, Aliette. (2014). Accessibilité didactique et dynamique topogénétique : Une étude de cas. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 34(1), 33–57. Clot, Y., Faïta, D., Fernandez, G., & Scheller, L. (2000). Entretiens en autoconfrontation croisée : Une méthode en clinique de l’activité. Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/pistes.3833 Dupré, F. (2020). Analyse didactique d’une séance de coenseignement entre un enseignant spécialisé et un enseignant régulier dans le cadre de pratiques inclusives au collège. Éducation et francophonie, 48(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075040ar Edström, K., Gardelli, V., & Backman, Y. (2024). Inclusion as participation: Mapping the participation model with four different levels of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28(12), 2940–2957. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2136773 Fanchini, A. (2022). Les formulaires d’enquête : Modalités de construction, formes et fonctions. In B. Albero & J. Thiévenaz (Eds.), Enquêter dans les métiers de l’humain. Traité de méthodologie de la recherche en sciences de l’éducation et de la formation (Vol. 2, pp. 451–473). Éditions Raison et Passions. https://doi.org/10.3917/rp.alber.2022.02.0451 Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2017). Interactions: collaboration skills for school professionals. Pearson Education. Janin, M., & Couvert, D. (2020). Le coenseignement: Bénéfices, limites et importance de la formation. Éducation et francophonie, 48(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075042ar Janin, M., Moreau, G., & Toullec-Théry, M. (2021). Le coenseignement dans une classe hétérogène promeut-il une différenciation pédagogique ? Éducation et socialisation. Les Cahiers du CERFEE, (60). https://doi.org/10.4000/edso.14674 Lescouarch, L. (2007). Les pratiques pédagogiques de co-intervention des maîtres E en réseau d’aides. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, (38), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.3917/nras.038.0169 Marquet, J., Campenhoudt, L. V., & Quivy, R. (2022). Manuel de recherche en sciences sociales (6th ed.). Armand Colin. Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2021). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales (5th ed.). Armand Colin. Saillot, É., & Malmaison, S. (2018). Analyse des ajustements réciproques dans une activité de coenseignement. Éducation et socialisation. Les Cahiers du CERFEE, (47). https://doi.org/10.4000/edso.23275 Strogilos, V., King-Sears, M. E., Tragoulia, E., Voulagka, A., & Stefanidis, A. (2023). A meta-synthesis of co-teaching students with and without disabilities. Educational Research Review, (38), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100504 Toullec-Théry, M. (2019). Le co-enseignement modifierait-il l’articulation générique/spécifique des savoirs en jeu lors de pratiques inclusives ? [Paper presentation]. First international conference of the Théorie de l'Action Conjointe en Didactique (TACD). https://hal.science/hal-04198195 Tremblay, P. (2012). Inclusion scolaire : dispositifs et pratiques pédagogiques. De Boeck.